|
>>RE: I feel like it could transformative if the Dem Party ran
>as >a....Party.
>>I've been thinking a lot lately that the way we frame
>>presidential elections is wrong.
>>
>>We more or less have individuals running with the implicit
>>promise that they alone can make change happen.
>
>the very nature of any electoral process is someone declaring
>themselves as the best LEADER, not necessarily as the singular
>person who can do it all
Trump explicitly stated he is the only one who can do it. Obama though not explicitly stated such, did appeal to this notion that it only takes a different approach to get stuff done because we all basically are purple and have alot in common and want the same things. Schultz said something similar. That approach is kind of bullshit because if it really were so simple, how come no one else seems able to do it? It doesn't acknowledge the limitations of the office or the structural challenges in place that stop the sort of progress they were selling. Obama eventually learned that it wasn't as easy as just reaching across the ailse and when he learned that his sale was less ambitious. Then he started to talk about incremental change.
>
>>Republicans are different only in that Trump didn't make an
>>implicit promise that he is the one, he literally said that
>he
>>is the only one who can fix Washington.
I am saying Obama and Dem politicians imply it, while Trump explicitly stated that he is the only one who can fix it. Not sure how that doesn't make sense.
>
>that sentence doesn't make sense.
>
>if he said he is the only one, how is that not implicit?
>
>likewise, it's not different at all. As you (sorta) stated
>this is no different than Obama promising to be the face of
>change and presenting himself as the one in whom to put your
>hope
That's my point. It's the same. Just one is explicit and the other is implicit.
>
>
>>if you set up expectations that you can fix Washington in 4
>to 8
>>years, you are bound to dissappoint a lot of people.
>
>
>right. but you ALSO can't say "i will kick the can for 8 years
>and nothing major will have changed" (even if its true)
No but you can modulate your message the way Obama did. Here is an article that better (than me) explains Obama's shifting rhetoric.
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/18/10623470/obama-achievements-2015
Now it's hard to make campaign slogans around incremental change, but you can get people to buy into the notion that they are part of a long running movement and ongoing struggle for a better country.
>
>>....there was a much louder grousing
>>about what he had not been able to accomplish all the way to
>>the moment Trump was elected.
>
>louder than what? again, this happens EVERY TIME
> for example....
>- Carter got in on his common-man, simple dignity after the
>abreviated Ford years and the Nixon resignation
>
>- Reagan got in because people was "the common man" as weak,
>uncarismatic, horrible with economics and felt we needed a
>stronger leader who would "restore out stature"
>
>- bush 1 rode those coat-tails and because his competition was
>alfred e newman (dukakis)
>
>- clinton got in because we were tired of that and enough
>young folks who wanted someone young in to reject "the old
>ways"
>
>- Bush 2 got in off of how morally bankrupt Clinton was and
>how he had messed everything up
>
>- Obama got in off how bad everything was because of bush and
>how he was just a puppet for super-corrupt evil figureheads
>
>- trump comes in to "make things great again"
>
>it's all very cyclical
Yes it's cyclical but that doesn't really undermind my point. Which is there would be less of a backlash if politicians were seen as part of a team/coliation with an ongoing agenda that transcends one office and one term.
>
>>....but I worry a fall out would be
>>a bloody nomination process and lot of sore losers who
>become
>>disengaged with the process after their candidate does not
>>win.
>
>so now we have folks who are on some "if I don't get mmy way
>I'll take my vote and stay home...that'll learn 'em"
>
>and thats how we end up with Trump
>
>I legit believe that is a more youthful (immature or naive
>perhaps?) approach because a good number of republicans didn't
>like Trump but once he got the nom they held their nose and
>voted for him just so sold girl wouldn't/couldn't win
>
>>Change the Nomination process so that it is shorter and ends
>a
>>lot earlier. Let's have a fair and open process but get to
>>the outcome waaay sooner.
>
>That's not gonna change anything, or more like I don;'t see
>how it will
Less time bloodying each other up. More time to coalease around the winner.
>
>>Then when you have your nominee picked, that Nominee
>declares
>>their VP and Cabinet Picks Waaay early. Then when you have
>>your squad all lined up, you formalize your platform and
>>campaign like a team like the Avengers.
>
>okay...
>
>>This would have so many benefits I think. If your candidate
>>loses, you can bear the loss better when you know their role
>>before the election and that losing candidate can campaign
>>aggressively for the nominee with their fans for the
>November
>>election.
>
>why would this suddenly be a thing?
>
>you go from fighting tooth-and-nail with someone then the next
>day you're like "ah well, the best person won. All you people
>who supported me, now go support the person I just spent
>however long telling you why they suck?"
That's the point. You wouldn't spend a long time telling them and the public that they suck. Much shorter period of seeking the nomination. ****
Think about it. Our current process is that those seeking the nomination spend over a year seeking the nomination and only a few months running against their opponent. Doesn't that seem backwards and likely to breed internal conflict?
>
>>If Elizabeth Warren doesn't win the nomination, that's an
>>easier pill to swallow for her fans if they know she will be
>>head of Treasury and she is active on the trail for whoever
>is
>>the nominee (though she should stay in the Senate but yeah).
>
>
>You just injected the idea that the loser would get a "lesser"
>position in the cabinet of the person that beat then and both
>they(the losing candidate, and this supporters) would be OK
>and just kumbiya the rest of the way?
That's how its suppose to work. I think it would work better if you can promise the rewards of loyalty sooner.
>
>i can't see that being as easy as you said without some
>political give-back (see: hillary as Sec of State, then
>getting Obama support the next go round)
I mean there can be some horsetrading but some form of it goes on now to some extent.
>
>>You also get to put all these rock stars who aren't
>>necessarily ready to run for President to work.
>
>This is where you mess up. Who gets to determine when someone
>isn't ready? Are we going back to the "wait your turn" model?
>Doesn't that contradict your whole "let everybody try" thing?
I think you kind of missed my point here. The fair and open nomination process determines who isn't ready. That is, someone isn't ready to run for president because they don't win the nomination in a fair and open (AND short and early) process. Stacey Abrams can run for the nomination, but if she doesn't get it then she falls in line and supports the nominee and the nominee incentivizes her and her people by declaring she will have such and such title.
Again, it's really NOT that different from how the process is suppose to work. Just some tweaks around timing and framing.
>
>
>Do realize that mentality and your whole plan would have
>killed Obama, at least for 4 years
The process worked for Obama DESPITE HRC. The process didn't work in 2016 because they really did succesfully clear the field and people felt like Sanders didn't get to participate in a fair and open process.
>to the bigger point - what you are describing IS how the
>party-system is (on paper) supposed to work
I agree. but it doesn't seem to work like it is suppose to. I am not calling for a major overhaul of the system. But I do think some minor tweaks and return to basics could have a huge impact.
>BUT we don't vote for ideas/ideologies as much as
>personalities and who catches our attention more
>
>perhaps there is something I'm missing in your plan
>
*****I mean in general I think the politicking window should be much shorter. I think presidential campaigns should be only one month and during that period the campaigns should the focus and debates would happen every night and be done with. It would do so much to take money out of politics. But That's a whole nother topic.
**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
